Political roundtable

April 13: With less than 10 days to the Pennsylvania primary, we will devote the full hour to insights & analysis on Decision 2008 with four of the sharpest minds in politics: Democratic strategists James Carville and Bob Shrum, and Republican strategists Mary Matalin and Mike Murphy.

MR. RUSSERT:All the while,
John McCain
is thinking running mate and plotting a
general election
strategy.

With us: he helped put
Bill
and
Hillary Clinton
in the
White House
in
1992
-- Democrat
James Carville
; she worked for
Bush 41
,
Bush 43
and
Dick Cheney
-- Republican
Mary Matalin
; he worked for
John McCain
on his
2000
presidential
campaign
-- Republican
Mike Murphy
; and he worked for
Kerry
,
Gore
and
Barack Obama
's key supporter
Ted Kennedy
-- Democrat
Bob Shrum
. The race for the
White House
through the eyes of
Carville
,
Matalin
,
Murphy
and
Shrum
, only on
MEET THE PRESS
.

Welcome, all. That -- what a week in politics. The very latest delegate count, polls, strategies, issues.

Next stop is
Pennsylvania
a week from Tuesday.
Latest Time
magazine poll:
Clinton
, 44,
Obama
, 38. Two weeks later it'd be
Indiana
. Look at this race: 49-46,
Clinton-Obama
. And in
North Carolina
the same day,
May 6th
:
Obama
, 35;
Clinton
, 26; undecided, 39 percent.

But latest development: last Sunday
Barack Obama
went to a fundraiser in
San Francisco
, made some comments. They became public late on Friday afternoon. He was asked, according to his
campaign
, could he appeal to
blue collar
voters? And this was his answer: Everyone "just" describes "it to `white working-class don't wanna work -- don't wanna vote for the black guy.'...

"Here's how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial
states
like
Ohio
and
Pennsylvania
, people have been beaten down so long. They feel so betrayed by government that when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by -- it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named
Barack Obama
, then that adds another layer of skepticism. ... You go into some of" those "
small
towns in
Pennsylvania
, and like a lot of
small
towns in" "
Midwest
, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years, nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the
Clinton administration
, and the
Bush administration
, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns

or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-
trade
sentiment as a way to
explain
their frustrations."

Hillary Clinton
responded this way:

SEN. CLINTON:Now, like some of you may have been, I was taken aback by the demeaning remarks
Senator Obama
made about people in
small
town
America
.
Senator Obama
's remarks are elitist, and they're out of
touch
. They are not reflective of the values and beliefs of
Americans
.

SEN. OBAMA:So I made the statement -- so here, here's what's rich.
Senator Clinton
says, "Well, I don't think people are bitter in
Pennsylvania
, you know. I think
Barack
's being condescending."
John McCain
says, "Oh, how could he say that? How could he say that people are bitter? You know, he obviously is out of
touch
with people." Out of
touch
? Out of
touch
? I mean, here --
John McCain
, it took him three tries to finally figure out that the home foreclosure crisis was a
problem
and to come up with a plan for it, and he's saying I'm out of
touch
?
Senator
,
Senator Clinton
voted for a
credit card
-sponsored bankruptcy bill that made it harder for people to get out of debt after taking money from the
financial services
companies, and she says I'm out of
touch
?

No, I'm in
touch
. I know exactly what's going on. I know what's going on in
Pennsylvania
, I know what's going on in
Indiana
, I know what's going on in
Illinois
. People are fed up. They're angry and they're frustrated and they're bitter, and they want to see a change in
Washington
. And that's why I'm running for president of the
United States
.

MR. RUSSERT:But by yesterday
Senator Obama
was making this admission.

SEN. OBAMA (Muncie, Indiana, Saturday):I didn't say it as well as I should have because, you know, the truth is that these traditions that are passed on from generation to generation, those are important. That's what sustains us. But what is absolutely true is that people don't feel like they're being listened to.

MR. RUSSERT:James Carville
, is this a real issue?

MR. CARVILLE:Yeah, I think it is at issue, and, and the other thing is just some slight historical inaccuracies in here. Jobs in
Pennsylvania
went up substantially under
Bill Clinton
. Most of these jobs were lost in, in the early '80s in fact. The
gun culture
has been part of
Pennsylvania
forever, for a long, long time. I remember "
The Deer Hunter
," which is one of the really great movies in
1978
. I don't think that
Senator Obama
really understands the relationship of Pennsylvanians or

Midwesterners or
Southerners
and, and their guns. I mean, I, I have eight guns myself. I'm hardly bitter about things.

And also that the, the people have been going to church in
Pennsylvania
for a long time, a really long time. I can take you to
Catholic churches
in
Scranton
where my -- Governor
Casey
was both before and after the
Quecreekcoal mines
flooded. But I don't know if it's devastating. I think it was a poor choice of words. I think the forum in
San Francisco
, like he was explaining, these people or somebody else, it was, was unfortunate and he's, he's going to have to do some more explaining about this. But his
cultural history
is way, way off, way off.

MR. RUSSERT:Bob Shrum.

MR. SHRUM:Well, he's not running for sociologist in chief, he's running for president. So I think he wishes he hadn't said it quite this way. I think he wishes he'd said it the same way he did the second day around.

Now, the truth is,
James
and I, starting 25 years ago in
focus groups
in
Pennsylvania
and polling etc., heard a lot of anger, a lot of frustration. Jobs did go up in
Pennsylvania
when
Clinton
was president, but not in places like I was born in --
Connellsville
,
Uniontown
, those
small
towns that have been abandoned. So there's an element of truth in what he said. But the underlying question here is whether
McCain
and
Clinton
can tag him with the term elitist, which is what they want. I mean, here's a guy who just finished paying his
student loans
, who was raised by a
single mother
and his grandparents, who doesn't know what it's like to have $100 million. So I think
Senator Clinton
has to be a
little
careful in pushing this because, frankly, she hasn't lived in the
real world
for 25 years; she's lived in a bubble. At a certain point I think it'll come back on her, but right now it's a blessing because it got the whole attention of the press off
Bill Clinton
's rewinding and replaying the tale of
Tuzla
, the tape that came back out of the network vaults about Mrs.
Clinton
's visit to
Bosnia
.

MR. RUSSERT:Mary
Matalin.

MS. MATALIN:Well, the damage here is that what he said accurately reflects the current
Democratic Party
. It's more affluent. It's more liberal. That's the way it's moving. He was saying it to
San Francisco Democrats
, rich
San Francisco Democrats
, and it reflects the kind of
Democrat
that loses at the presidential level. In the last half century -- greater than the last half century --
Democrats
have not won at the presidential level unless they have a centrist southern -- a centrist
Southerner
. This is in the, in the, of the ilk of endives, Belgian endives, remember that...

MR. SHRUM:Right.

MS. MATALIN:...in the '88
campaign
? We didn't know what endives were, let alone Belgian endives. Now he's talking about arugula from
Whole Foods
or, with respect, the
Wind Surfer
, the
Wind Surfer
and
Speedo
. Those are not the kind of
Democrats
that
Americans
are going to elect. And that's what this is in the, in the tradition of. This is not -- and he may be lulled into a false sense of "We can get past this," because the people he's talking to, as was the case with the Wright incident, will not react to this. But this is a
general election
nightmare for that candidate.

MR. MURPHY:Yeah, from the Republican point of view this is beyond beautiful because it works on so many levels. On one level, you've got the
Hillary Clintoncampaign
out of money, out of gas and
big trouble
. This is like all of a sudden a huge shot of steroids to them. It gives them a reason to go, it'll give them a bounce in
Pennsylvania
where I think they were in danger of being upset. So now
Hillary Clinton
is still in business, the fight goes on. I think
Barack
probably still prevails, but in the primary it means more trouble between the
Democrats
, more ammunition for her, good for
Republicans
. But in the
general election
, though, this is a window into the wheelhouse of the
Democratic Party
. I agree with
Mary
.
The
-- one of the big vexing things for Democratic elite is how to hell do working-class whites ever vote Republican? We give them all the
class warfare
stuff, but they still seem to do it. Well, they do it on culture. And the
Democrats
, many of them, look at this like some sociological disease to be explained away. And
Barack
, sitting in some $10 million backyard had to
explain
it like a sociologist...

MR. MURPHY:And now it becomes the defining point that hurts
Barack
among the very votes he's going to need in the
general election
to beat
John McCain
. This thing is going to stick because it's part of the way the, the
Democrat Party
of today is, is disconnected, I think, from the
swing voters
who are going to decide this election.

MR. RUSSERT:Bob Shrum
, the, the words "cling to guns," "cling to religion," you're going to hear those over and over again...

MR. SHRUM:Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT:...a suggestion of condescending talk.

MR. SHRUM:Yeah, I think he confused the comfort of the familiar with the
fear of the unknown
when he sort of lumped church and guns with immigration. I don't agree with any of this, and I guess I'll just dissent.

MR. MURPHY:You elitist.

MR. SHRUM:Yeah, right, you -- listen, let me tell you, no one's sitting at this table that has it tough the way people in
Pennsylvania
have it tough.

MR. MURPHY:Uh-huh.

MR. SHRUM:And I think he was explaining what was going on with a lot of those folks. Now, should he have said it that way? No. I think it does give him the
chance
, by the way, to go back

into these
small
towns and talk about what he really meant. More than that, I think this will be settled by the debate on Wednesday night. I think this will be a big issue in the debate. The way he handles it will, will establish whether he can create resonance with these folks he was talking about.

MR. MURPHY:But the question is, is what -- the
argument
he made -- forget about cling, an unfortunate word that he, of course, says he regrets -- is the
argument
he makes true? Do people resonate to issues like the
Second Amendment
and, and the other things he mentioned -- guns and
trade
and everything else...

MR. SHRUM:But I...

MR. MURPHY:...because of
economic
distress, or is it legitimate to be a
cultural conservative
? That is the question he brought up.

MR. SHRUM:People go with sociology, and he shouldn't be a sociologist.

MR. MURPHY:So he's wrong.

MR. SHRUM:People -- sociology says that when people are in distress, when they're economically deprived, they, they hold onto the things in their lives that give them some sense of security and identity. That's faith, that can be hunting, that can be all of those things.

MR. MURPHY:But he implies it's a illegitimate.

MR. SHRUM:Should he have said it? No.

MR. MURPHY:He implies it's a construction of
economic
....

MR. SHRUM:No, he does not imply it. No, he does not.

MR. CARVILLE:. There are a substantial number of people in this
country
that hunt for pleasure, or they have guns and they shoot for pleasure. It -- they, they.... They're people that go to church. And,
Bob
, you and I know this, that people that go to church because they're people of faith. There are people that go to church because it's a joyous experience.

MR. SHRUM:You mean like
Robert
......goes to church.

MR. CARVILLE:Yeah, whatever. I'm just, I'm just saying that in -- culturally, he, he, he, he -- I know he's not sociologist in charge, but that he didn't have his kind of history right. He needs to have a better history and a better understanding. I think -- and I think
Bob
is right, he's going to have a
chance
in the debate, and he's going to have a
chance
to, to, to kind of re-
explain
himself here. But this statement was really off in terms of his -- its, its, its accuracy and understanding who "these people are." They're -- they'll -- there's a large segment of the
Democratic Party
that would like to win an election without these kind of white, working-class voters, and we need a substantial...

MR. SHRUM:Well, I come, I, I, I come from these folks.

MR. CARVILLE:I know you don't.
Bob
, I've worked...

MR. SHRUM:I come from those folks, and I want to win with those folks.

MR. CARVILLE:I -- right, I -- but...

MR. SHRUM:But let, let, let me say, I, I think we're being unfair to the guy. I thought two weeks ago everybody was being unfair to
Hillary Clinton
saying she ought to get out of the race.

MR. CARVILLE:Right.

MR. SHRUM:And I wrote an op-ed piece saying she ought to stay in and she ought to fight this thing until it's decided. But I think we're being unfair to him. I
understand
why these guys are. The truth of the matter is, he's describing a, a condition that exists in a lot of these towns that have been abandoned. I was born in one of them. The population is
half of what
it used to be.

MR. MURPHY:Right.

MR. CARVILLE:And I think you're right, he's going to have a
chance
to
explain
it.

MR. SHRUM:I hope you guys go into
Pennsylvania
and
explain
it that way.

MS. MATALIN:Let, let me, can I say something more practical about this, getting out of the anthropological study of it? He's not the candidate that he's promised to be. This is a very important point. We know he's not been vetted properly because every week something comes out. He's -- hasn't been tested properly. He's never run a tough race like this. The reason it's important that he said it so poorly is because he holds out the promise of being the "great articulator," the "great communicator" of the
new Democratic Party
. And when he's under -- he, the, the longer he goes, the more he's exposed, and this is not an isolated incident, to be a not particularly overwhelming candidate. And that's when there's really no issues. You're not fighting over issues. Wait till he gets up against
John McCain
where there are real issue differences.

MR. SHRUM:Mary
, if I were supporting the candidate who can't tell
Sunnis
from
Shias
, I'm not sure how fine a point I'd make about the exactitude of vocabulary.

MR. SHRUM:No, no, you just, you just said they used, he -- you can't do it because his vocabulary is inexact.

MS. MATALIN:Bob
, it...

MR. MURPHY:No, this is part of what...

MR. SHRUM:I think he -- I said, I think he made a mistake. He said it the wrong way.

MR. MURPHY:Yeah.

MR. SHRUM:OK?

MR. MURPHY:Yeah, but you essentially agree with the constructivist
argument
. I don't think the
country
does. We're going to test it in the election. The question is, will this start to define him in the
general election
? Should he be the nominee in a bad way? And I think it will because cultural issues are where the
Democratic Party
always fumbles, and he is well on his way to fumbling. He's turning into
Mike Dukakis
, that kind of
Democrat
.

MS. MATALIN:Yes.

MR. MURPHY:If that sticks, he loses.

MR. CARVILLE:Let me, let me, let me -- first of all, and I don't think
Bob
is right. I think, I think this is, is something that he's going to have to
explain
. You think that, that
John McCain
is not going to have to
explain
the fact that he said the
economy
was fundamentally sound? Or
John McCain
is not going to have to
explain
the fact that he says that people's
economic
struggles are psychological? Oh, yeah. Can I tell you something? It's going to come again and again and again. And, and, and
Barack Obama
can get up to speed a lot faster on some of the sort of history --
cultural history
of this
country
than
John McCain
can get up on economics, I promise you that.

MR. RUSSERT:All right, Mr.
Carville
. Speaking of explaining, your former boss was in
Booneville
,
Indiana
, the other day, and this is what he had to say about his wife.

FMR. PRES. BILL CLINTON:There was a lot of fulminating because
Hillary
one time late at night when she was exhausted misstated and immediately apologized for it, what happened to her in
Bosnia
in
1995
. Did y'all see all that? Oh, they blew it up.

And you would have thought, you know, that she'd robbed a bank the way they all carried on about this. And some of them, when they're 60, they'll forget something when they're tired at
11:00
at night.

MR. RUSSERT:All right. First of all, it was
1996
rather than '95, which -- much different
time frame
in
Bosnia
. There was no immediate explanation or apology; it took at least a week. And it didn't happen late at night just once. In fact, the first time we can find was back in December. Let's watch.

(Videotape,
December 29, 2007
)

SEN. CLINTON:We used to say in the
White House
that if a place was too dangerous, too
small
or too poor, send the first lady. So, you know, we landed in one of those corkscrew landings and ran out because they said there might be sniper fire.

MR. RUSSERT:And then two months later at 3:00 in the afternoon.

(Videotape,
February 29, 2008
)

SEN. CLINTON:I remember particularly a trip to
Bosnia
where the welcoming ceremony had to be moved inside because of sniper fire.

MR. RUSSERT:And then three weeks later, bright and
early in the morning
.

(Videotape,
March 17, 2008
)

SEN. CLINTON:I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.

MR. RUSSERT:Then later that same day:

(Videotape,
March 17, 2008
)

SEN. CLINTON:There was no greeting ceremony, and we basically were told to run to our cars. Now, that is what happened.

MR. RUSSERT:What actually happened was leaving the plane and strolling over to a rather extended greeting ceremony, just contrary to the way
Senator Clinton
had explained it.

JamesCarville
.

MR. CARVILLE:Look, I love the man, OK? And, and he taught me the lesson -- every time I teach a, a, a class on
political
consulting -- he taught me a lesson. And he said, "You know, every time that we make it about us, it hurts us. Every time we make it about them, it helps us." And
President Clinton
broke his first fundamental rule of politics, is the voters want an election about them, not us. And I think his wife's advice to him, as I
understand
it, she told him to shut up on this subject, which probably is some pretty good advice. I -- but I think that he understands that and, and I hope, you know -- and I think that, that
Senator Clinton
's
campaign
and
President Clinton
are going to spend the rest of the time talking about voters and their problems and not talking about -- you know, any, any time that the, the, the history of the
Clintons
is when it, when it make the election about themselves, they don't do as well. When they make the elections about the voters, they do better.

MR. CARVILLE:You know what? He's -- I, I love, I
love that man
so much, and he, and, and he gets out there and he defends his wife maybe too much. He just, you know...

MR. SHRUM:He's kind of an unguided missile in this
campaign
.

MR. CARVILLE:Sometimes. Sometimes.

MR. SHRUM:And he's hit her rather than...

MR. CARVILLE:Right.

MR. SHRUM:...the opponent.

MR. CARVILLE:Well, and I had to look at this again today.

MR. SHRUM:And, and, look, look...

MR. MURPHY:You know, it's funny, but he's become a bit of a self-parody. That's why we're all laughing, and that's the
Clintonproblem
. And they're so casual with the truth, an admittedly
small
thing, I don't
understand
how her mind works to think about it. I -- when you're going to a
combat zone
, you bring
Sinbad
the comedian in case things get rough? I, I, I -- you know, it's funny, but it's also the
Clintonproblem
and the
Clinton
fatigue issue.

MR. RUSSERT:But a bigger issue, perhaps in terms of substantive issues, was -- is
trade
. And I want to go back to
Ohio
when there were revelations that
Barack Obama
's
economic
adviser had met with the Canadians and had talked about the
North American Free Trade Agreement
. It became a very serious issue, widely discussed throughout the
campaign
. And this is what
Senator Clinton
said then.

(Videotape,
March 3, 2008
)

SEN. CLINTON:I would ask you to look at this story, substitute my name for
Senator Obama
's name and see what you would do with this story. That's what I would ask you to do.

Just ask yourself, if some of my advisers had been having private meetings with foreign governments, basically saying "Ignore what I'm saying because it's only
political
rhetoric," I think it, I think it raises serious questions.

MR. RUSSERT:In fact that is now what has happened. This was some of the stories:"
Bill Clinton
voiced `support' for a controversial
Colombia
free-
trade
pact that his wife has fiercely opposed -- and he accepted $800,000 in speaking fees from a group boosting the agreement....

"The news came just two days after Sen.
Hillary Rodham Clinton
pushed her chief
strategist
,
Mark Penn
, from his post after he embarrassed the
campaign
by consulting with
Colombia
government officials over the
trade
deal." His company was paid some $300,000.

Bob Shrum
, does this affect the
campaign
?

MR. SHRUM:It affects it some, and it raises questions about how strongly she actually feels on the
trade
issue. But look,
Mark Penn
's
problem
was not that he met with the Colombians. I, I think
James may
have had the same experience I've had. I mean, when we went in the
Gorecampaign
, the
Kerry campaign
we gave up the commercial clients because there was a potential conflict of interest. But his real
problem
, the
original sin
, was coming up with a strategy -- or no strategy, as
James
sometimes puts it -- that left her as the establishment candidate in a year of change. And what they did was convert her inevitability into improbability. They didn't
understand
Democratic primaries. I don't think
Mark
has, has much experience running winning Democratic primaries for
Senate
, governor or president. That's why he should have gone.

MR. MURPHY:Well, yeah. I --
James
is closer to her than I -- it's been a flawed
campaign
strategically from the beginning, and fundamentally, in a change election, she -- all this stuff is assembled for the same old politics. And they habitually, by just their, their method of politics, make it worse. Their activity, their style, whether it's witting or unwitting, is part of their message and it's part of their
problem
. It's why
Barack
, even with all these problems, I think will still be the nominee.

MR. CARVILLE:Yeah.
Look
, if you're going to insist that you be called the chief
strategist
, as Mr.
Penn
did, the least you could do is come up with a strategy, I mean. But, but having said that, he is no longer the chief
strategist
, and that's why he's gone. Look, I want to say this very clearly.
Senator Clinton
was never very much for a free
trade
agreement. During the
campaign
, I remember, as does everybody in that
campaign
remember, she was very cool on the idea of
NAFTA
. I --
President Clinton
is more -- has always been much more of a free trader than she is. In the
White House
, everybody that works there,
David Gergen
included, says that she was always
pretty cool
on this stuff. He's always been -- he, he pushed for
NAFTA
. He's been much more of a free trader than she is. That, that is a difference there. And I remember very clearly from the

campaign
, because it was maybe the only time that I ever was kind of in a different place on an issue than she was. So that, that -- there is a -- and, and anybody there will attest to that fact over a period of time. He's much more of a free trader than she is.

MR. RUSSERT:Mary
.

MS. MATALIN:But that's not what she said in her book, so this is the worst
political
pandering.
Bill Clinton
is right.
Mark Penn
has not been fired, but he was right. This
Colombia FTA
that they're politically pandering on, and
NAFTA
before that,
trade
is 40 percent of our growth, 40 percent of our
GDP
right now.
Colombia
has renegotiated this thing 506 days ago. It's the -- it is -- we cannot be prosperous in a
global economy
unless we're engaged in
trade
. I don't -- how -- this is -- they're going backwards. They're going -- before
Bill Clinton
--
Bill Clinton
did move your party to the center on these future issues.
Trade
in a
global economy
is the only way to have prosperity.

MR. SHRUM:But there are two, two problems here,
Mary
. The first is whether there's a Republican president or a Democratic president, you're not going to get these
trade
agreements approved until there's some kind of labor and environmental protections.

MS. MATALIN:Bob...

MR. SHRUM:That's the reality.

MS. MATALIN:...know your reality. They...

MR. SHRUM:Mary
, let me finish. A lot of
Republicans
are...

MS. MATALIN:Bush
put it...

MR. SHRUM:...going to vote against them.

MS. MATALIN:No.

MR. SHRUM:A lot of
Republicans
from these
states
are going to vote against them.

MS. MATALIN:No.

MR. SHRUM:Secondly, I think
Hillary Clinton
's
problem
on this is that she was a good soldier in the
Clinton administration
. Whatever she thought privately, she had people in, she pushed for
NAFTA
, all of that. I take
James
' word that she was skeptical about it during the
campaign
.

MR. RUSSERT:Mike Murphy
, is
John McCain
going to go to
Michigan
,
Pennsylvania
,
Ohio
and say, "I'm a free trader. We got to push these
trade
deals"?

MR. MURPHY:He's going to be to the right on
trade
of the
Democrats
, which he's already paid a
political
price for. He went...

MR. CARVILLE:What is right...

MR. MURPHY:Let me finish.

MR. CARVILLE:What is right on
trade
?

MR. MURPHY:Let, let me finish.
John McCain
, unlike any time in the
Clinton
history other than
Bill Clinton
on
trade
, where I'll give him some credit, went to
Michigan
, told a bunch of
Michigan
autoworkers the truth about that industry and lost the primary. So you can't question
McCain
's
political
courage on these issues. The
Republican Party
is the free
trade
party, even though it's unpopular at times because it's easy to scapegoat
trade
. But I think
McCain
will be courageous on this. He will run on a free
trade
platform. There is some fairness and equity issues in
trade
; he'll address that. And I don't speak for the
campaign
, but I know him well. But I -- you know, and they're going to pander to, to the
Luddites
who say, "Yeah, let's run a protectionist
country
," and then we're really going to make a lot of people bitter in
small
town
America
.

MR. CARVILLE:Let me tell you something. When you tell people that their
economic
problems are psychological, you're a courageous guy. You, you got a courageous guy to go tell people that. What -- "What the hell, it's all psychological."

MR. MURPHY:Well, you know there's more to what he said than that.

MR. SHRUM:I'd rather he said what
Obama
said that than.

MR. CARVILLE:Yeah. That's a -- that takes a lot of
political
courage.

MR. RUSSERT:Let me tie all this up before we take a break. It is remarkable, here we are in
April 2008
, and
Hillary Clinton
's
campaign
for the nomination could be in trouble. There's no doubt about it. By every...

MR. CARVILLE:Absolutely. And I agree. This is -- I think
Senator Obama
yesterday said something that I can, I can definitely agree on. He says, "
Indiana
's going to be the tie-breaker." And this thing, if she wins
Pennsylvania
, he wins
North Carolina
, I -- who would have thought, when this entire process started, that
Indiana
was going to be the absolute crucial state here. And that's, and that's by
Senator Obama
's own definition himself, and I think that he's right. I think that
Indiana
is going, going to pretty much tell us a lot about which way this is going to go.

MR. SHRUM:James
, you're clinging to
Indiana
like a
life preserver
. You worried about
North Carolina
?

MR. CARVILLE:I'm asking -- I'm going with what
Senator Obama
said.

MR. SHRUM:No, no, look...

MR. CARVILLE:I'm agreeing with his statement.

MR. SHRUM:The fact is, she has to win
Pennsylvania
by a big margin, she has to win most of the rest of the
states
by a big margin, she has to break the mold by either winning or coming very close to
North Carolina
. Otherwise, to paraphrase
Ronald Reagan
, numbers are stubborn things, and he'll end up being the nominee.

MR. MURPHY:But it's even, it's even more than that. Unless he keeps channeling
Mike Dukakis
every day and totally implodes, which is now possible, I think, the -- there is -- he can -- she can lose the nomination, and the
Democratic Party
can, can go on and be formidable. To take the nomination away from
Barack
now requires a big superdelegate
U-turn
that's going to look like a smoke-filled deal and rip the
Democratic Party
in half. You cannot put that
Barack
toothpaste back in the tube unless
Barack
totally implodes. And he has not done that.

MR. RUSSERT:She was such the overwhelming favorite. If you go back and read anything in
2006
,
2007
Politico,
Jim VandeHei
and, and
David Paul Kuhn
wrote this the other day:"
Hillary Rodham Clinton
wants voters to decide the nomination based on who can coolly and competently run the
country
. She had better hope they don't study her recent
campaign
too closely for the answer.

"
Clinton
has overseen two major staff shake-ups in two months. She has left a trail of unpaid bills and unhappy vendors and had to loan her own
campaign
$5 million to keep it afloat in January. Her
campaign
badly underestimated her main adversary,
Barack Obama
, miscalculated the importance of organizing caucus
states
, and was caught flat-footed after failing to lock up the nomination on
Super Tuesday
.

"It would be easy to dismiss all of this as fairly conventional
political
stumbling if she hadn't made her supreme readiness and managerial competence the central issue of her presidential
campaign
."

Is that fair,
Mary
?

MS. MATALIN:Yes, it's fair. I mean, what's -- of course it is.

MR. RUSSERT:Is that fair,
James
?

MR. CARVILLE:No. I -- it's fair to say that her
campaign
didn't have a strategy. It's also fair to say this is probably the best, most courageous toughest
presidential candidate
that we're ever seen anywhere, anyplace in our lifetimes, OK?

MR. SHRUM:You sound like
Jack Valenti
. I mean, that's a
littleover the top
.

MR. CARVILLE:She is -- she is -- her personal performance in this
campaign
, her personal tenacity has been awesome. Her
campaign
is -- I can't defend it. Look,
Bush
ran a very good
campaign
in
2000
. Look what that got us.

MR. SHRUM:Can I, can I, can I defend her without suggesting that she's the finest, most courageous candidate ever?
Ronald Reagan
had a big staff shake-up and went on to have an effective
presidency
.

MR. CARVILLE:Sure did.

Mr.
SHRUM
:
Bill Clinton
, although it was quieter, had a big staff shake-up in which
James
was put in charge in
1992
and went on to have an effective
presidency
. So I don't think that's the standard by which she would -- should be judged. The flaw in the
Clintoncampaign
, as
Mike
said, as I've said, as -- we all say it -- was they misread the year. The people advising her misread the year, she took bad advice. They went out and ran her as a semi-incumbent. They almost aped
Bill Clinton
's
1996
re-
election campaign
.

MR. MURPHY:Well, yeah, but I, I, I can't buy into that because -- I agree it's been an awful
campaign
, but I -- it's been the, you know,
gold standard
in awful campaigns. But
Hillary Clinton
, it's a
little
different for her because the
campaign
is a bigger part of her managerial biography. She was not elected governor of
Arkansas
. She was not elected president of the
United States
. This was the first big important enterprise, other than the
health care reform
, that she's had direct managerial responsibility for, and it has been a disaster. I salute her tenacity, I agree with that. But it has not been a smart
campaign
, an insightful
campaign
, or a well-run
campaign
, and that is a metric by which to judge her
presidency
.

MR. RUSSERT:One last point on
Senator Obama
.
Elitist
, condescending, words that are being used to describe him in light of his comments about
small
-town
America
. Also at that same fundraiser in
San Francisco
this has been written:

"At a fundraiser in
San Francisco
last weekend,
Obama
was answering a question about what he" could -- "would look for in a running mate if he wins the nomination. `I would like somebody who knows about a bunch of stuff that I'm not as expert on,' he replied. `I think a lot of people assume that might be some kind of
military
thing to make me look more commander-in-chief-like. Ironically, this is an area --
foreign policy
is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and
understand
the world better than
Senator Clinton
or Senator
McCain
.'"

MR. CARVILLE:Well, I, I mean, he's -- I guess...

MS. MATALIN:Based on what?

MR. CARVILLE:Yeah, I agree.

MR. SHRUM:You know how that'll be judged in the end? That'll be judged if he's the nominee by how they perform in the debates. It's very much like
John Kennedy
and
Richard Nixon
in '60.
Nixon
said experience counts;
Kennedy
went in to the debates. People looked at the debates, they said
Kennedy
can do the job. That's how that issue's going to be decided.

MR. CARVILLE:I, I, I would expect anybody who runs for president would think that they're better than, than, than the other person, but I don't exactly -- I mean, to be honest with you, I was a
little
bit -- what is he looking for in a running mate? Maybe somebody more economically grounded? I, I'm not sure what the comment meant, but I admire, I admire his, his kind of thinking that, "Look, I know this."

MR. MURPHY:I, I think one of the
political
rules of running-mate picking is to be sure not to choose somebody who looks like a signal by your weaknesses. You know, where you choose what you're not to remind everybody what you're not, because generally the
VP
doesn't do a lot for you. I think he needs a
small
town, gun owning pro-Christian now -- so I nominate
Carville
-- who's also valuable.

MR. CARVILLE:. Does that count? I could shoot a gun before I could ride a bike.

MR. RUSSERT:So then
John McCain
shouldn't pick someone young?

MR. MURPHY:If, if
John McCain
picks a young guy in a jogging suit, it's a incredibly stupid move because it's like the casting rule. You know, if you're
Robert Redford
's agent, and they want
Brad Pitt
to be the co-star, and you're like, "No, we want
Ernest Borgnine
." You know, it's a balancing act. So, no, I don't, I don't, you can be too clever by half.

MR. SHRUM:Look, you know the
political
, you know the
political
rule that this whole
Obama
thing illustrates? There's no such thing as a closed fundraiser. In the era of the
cell phones
...

MR. MURPHY:Yeah.

MR. SHRUM:...where anybody can record anything...

MR. CARVILLE:Right.

MR. SHRUM:...you're on camera or on the air all the time.

MR. CARVILLE:It does.

MS. MATALIN:I go back to this point: He's not as good a candidate as he professes to be, and all the superdelegates...

MR. SHRUM:You, I know you hope this,
Mary
. I know you hope this.

MS. MATALIN:I have no dog in this fight.

MR. MURPHY:But it's the......the issue.

MR. SHRUM:The only thing that, the only thing I like,
Mary
, is that you consistently defend
Senator Clinton
, and I look forward, a few months from now, if she's the nominee, to seeing what you say when you come on this show.

MS. MATALIN:Did I defend her? I have -- I am not for them. I'm for
John McCain
. He's not a good candidate. You superdelegates are supposed to be there for a purpose, not to follow the will of the people, but get somebody who can win in...

MR. CARVILLE:Right.

MR. RUSSERT:Mr.
Murphy
, you also worked for
Mitt Romney
.

MR. MURPHY:Yes.

MR. RUSSERT:Do you think he'd be a good running mate?

MR. MURPHY:Well, of all the hardball questions,
Tim
, I've ever -- yeah, I actually think he would be a very good running mate.

MR. RUSSERT:Oh, I knew I'd get him on that one!

MR. MURPHY:McCain
-- ah, you got me on it! No, no, but look. Three reasons: I don't -- you know, the first reasons are: good person, but there are a lot of people like that the, in the top list. But what I like about
Romney
is, the right
states
. He's kind of a prime minister type who can talk very good about the
economy
, and I think his fundraising energy is something the
Republican Party
's going to need against the
Barack Obama
money machine.

MR. CARVILLE:Why're we having this conversation?
Everybody knows
who
John McCain
's needs to pick:
Colin Powell
. The man has no other...

MR. SHRUM:Oh...

MR. CARVILLE:Yes, if he picks
Powell
...

MS. MATALIN:What sense is -- oh,
James
.

MR. CARVILLE:If he picks
Powell
, OK, what, what -- the person that somebody ought to pick is the one that makes...

MR. MURPHY:Talk about a......from the
Democrats
.
Powell
's great, but then it's a debate on....

MR. SHRUM:I don't think
Powell
would do it.

MR. SHRUM:I think, I think....

MR. CARVILLE:What -- I think that would be the strongest candidate. That'd be the strongest candidate, by far!

MR. RUSSERT:All right, but
Colin
,
Colin Powell
's spoken about this. So we're going to take a quick break, come back and talk about
Colin Powell
's advice to
McCain
,
Clinton
and
Obama
about
Iraq
. Be right back with these four extraordinary
political
strategists after this.

MR. RUSSERT:More on this historic race for the
White House
after this brief station break.

MR. RUSSERT:And we are back.

Mr.
Carville
, this rolled out on the table,
Colin Powell
as
VP
for
John McCain
. He was on television after
General Petraeus
testified before
Congress
, was talking about
Iraq
and what the next president of the
United States
-- be it Republican or
Democrat
-- would have to do. Let's listen.

MR. COLIN POWELL:I'll tell you what they're all going to face, whichever one of them becomes president on
January 21st
of
2009
. They will face a
military force
-- a
United States military
force that cannot sustain -- continually sustain 140,000 people deployed in
Iraq
and the 20-odd or 25,000 people we have deployed in
Afghanistan
and our other deployments. They will have to continue to draw down at some pace. None of them are going to have the flexibility of just saying, "We're out of here. Turn off the switch, turn off the lights, we're leaving."

MR. RUSSERT:Mary Matalin
, basically he's saying to
John McCain
, "Don't say we're staying for a long time, because we can't," and saying to
Clinton
and to
Obama
, "Don't say you're getting out quickly, because it's going to take a
little
time."

MS. MATALIN:Right. So -- but, but what he's essentially saying, and the
argument
that's going to be before the electorate and why the
Democrats
are going to lose this
argument
is are we at war? If you think this is a situation to be managed, then you have a set of criteria for going forward. If you think it's a war, if you think they are at war with us and we need to, to defend ourselves, then we have to figure out a way to deploy what we have that ensures our security. And it's, it's going to look different -- we've been saying the same thing for five years -- than it's -- than any previous war's ever looked at. And what the
Democrats
are trying to do, because they cannot win this
argument
that we're not at war, now they want to talk about the cost. So their, their, their subargument is then the cost of defeat is less than the cost of victory. So...

MR. SHRUM:That's not my
argument
. My, my
argument
is that no one was at war with us in
Iraq
until we went to war with
Iraq
, number one. Number two, a reasonable period of time to get out, 16 months, 18 months, two years. That is a reasonable period of time to get out. Number three,
John McCain
benefited from the surge during primaries. He has now made himself a hostage to events in
Iraq
, and, as we saw in
Basra
in the last couple of weeks, as we can read in
David Broder
's column in
The Washington Post
this morning where he said there's been no
political
progress at all, I don't think
John McCain
's going to win the
argument
on the war. I think he's going to be hurt badly in the next few months by being all-out for the war.

MR. MURPHY:That's the Democratic primary
argument
.

MS. MATALIN:Right.

MR. MURPHY:In the
general election
, this has yet to really be fought out.

MR. SHRUM:Why do you guys keep saying that?

MR. MURPHY:Because it is.

MR. SHRUM:Sixty-five percent of people...

MS. MATALIN:Because.

MR. SHRUM:...oppose the war.

MS. MATALIN:They're for it when you, when you -- this is why you resist talking about progress.

MR. SHRUM:I don't know why you keep saying it. This is not
2004
.

MR. MURPHY:No, that's...

MS. MATALIN:Because they're for it and they think it's worth it when they
understand
that progress is being made. That's why you keep denying that progress is being made. Do you know what
political
progress is? People telling our soldiers where these roadside bombs are being buried. That's a
political
progress.

MR. CARVILLE:But...

MR. SHRUM:Mary
, did you see all of the soldiers who were interviewed from that piece last week, and they all said they were for
Obama
and they wanted to get the war -- out of the war as quickly as possible?

MR. MURPHY:We're going to, we're going to, we're going to fight this out. The
Democrats
are going to try to redo the congressional elections. They talk about managing outcomes.
John McCain
is going to talk about fighting for victory. And the
country
's going to decide. Let's see what happens. I don't agree that we're going to have -- be...

MR. CARVILLE:OK, I'll tell you a
general electionargument
, is a d -- somebody's going to get up and say, "We got a three and a half -- we paying for a $3 1/2 trillion war and $3.50 for a gallon of gas, and something's got to change here and change fast."

MR. SHRUM:Right.

MR. CARVILLE:And, and, and our, our
military
is overstretched. And what
Colin Powell
said, I think a lot of people agree with. We got to figure out a way to start getting people out of there and rebuilding our own forces at a point. And I think they agree with that.

MR. SHRUM:McCain's...

MR. RUSSERT:If the voters are concerned, concerned about the
economy
, and they are, concerned about the war, and they are, and all the issues they say, "We prefer the
Democratic Party
," on a generic test, they prefer the
Democrat
over the Republican by 12 points, and then you match
McCain
-
Clinton
,
McCain
-
Obama
, it's dead even. In fact, in one poll,
Marist College
in
New York state
, a ticket of
John McCain
and
Condoleezza Rice
beat
Barack Obama
and
Hillary Clinton
, no matter who's on top of that ticket. What's going on?

MR. CARVILLE:In, in
1992
in June,
Bill Clinton
was running third to
George H.W. Bush
and to
Ross Perot
. In
2004
, in the
Gallup poll
in March, that
Kerry
was running like, I think,
14 points
ahead of
Bush
, something like that. It was huge.

MR. SHRUM:It wasn't 14, but you know how to hurt a guy,
James
.

MR. CARVILLE:OK, all right. And you know what? It may be a very close
general election
. I don't take anything for granted, but I do think when people are confronted with the choice, and, and, and the Democratic slogan is going to be, on
McCain
, "If you like the last eight, you're going to love the next four."

MR. MURPHY:But the signals fit...

MR. CARVILLE:And that is going to be, that's going to be the -- it fits completely, look at his
economic
plan.

MR. MURPHY:This is the -- if that's the Democratic frame of the race, and I actually with
James
...

MR. CARVILLE:It's a Democratic thing, yeah.

MR. MURPHY:...about, about the, the polls being that -- not that reliable. I believe polls after the two convention speeches in a
general election
, just like I always say about the primary, after the first contest. But the
Democrats
want to say "
Bush
third term," that's their whole
campaign
. You're going to hear it a million times. The question is, is that really
McCain
? And as somebody who was there in the epic battle between
McCain
and
Bush
for control of the
Republican Party
, I can guarantee you, for all the great things about
President Bush
,
McCain
is his own guy, he is totally different, he's different on a lot of important issues, which is why he's special and he's holding up in the polling data now in a time of horrible Republican environment. And it's why he's so formidable. They're going to run the most liberal guy they've had since
McGovern
if it's
Obama
.

MR. MURPHY:You know, they're -- the -- I kind of want -- I'd love to be in the bar with a couple of these superdelegates now on the Democratic side who are thinking, you know, old
political
pros saying, you know, "On one hand, we got, we got either blow up the world and nominate a candidate who, unfortunately, half the
country
think flies around on a broom, or we got this guy who's channeling
Dukakis
. We've got these -- in a great year, we've got two candidates in a
general election
who are trouble. How did this happen to us?"

MR. SHRUM:I think the characterizations, characterizations of both
Democrats
are wrong, but I want to stay on
McCain
for a minute, be analytical.

MR. MURPHY:Wait and see.

MR. RUSSERT:Yeah.

MR. SHRUM:What's happening here is a competition between biography and policy.
John McCain
, as biography, is not
George Bush
, doesn't look like
George Bush
. He's a maverick, people think he's different from
George Bush
. On the great issues before the
country
--
Iraq
,
Iran
, where he said, "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb
Iran
" -- he is very close to
George Bush
, in fact maybe more extreme.

MR. MURPHY:No, he isn't.

MR. SHRUM:And on the
economy
, this is someone who says the
economic
problems are psychological, who is obviously incompetent when he talks about the
economy
, but more than that, doesn't seem to care about it. Remember that moment in
1992
when
Bush
looked at his watch in the debate? When
John McCain
starts talking about the
economy
, it's almost like he's looking at his watch all the time.

MR. MURPHY:Oh, that is such a stretch a
Bob.

MR. RUSSERT:All that, all that being said, while
Senator Obama
and
Senator Clinton
are going after each other,
John McCain
is going to the inner cities, going to
Appalachia
, going out...

MR. MURPHY:Right. Right.

MR. RUSSERT:...reaching out to people, positioning himself, defining himself, framing himself. Is this a
problem
for the
Democrats
?

MR. CARVILLE:Well, first of all, first of all, he's going to, to
Iraq
and completely confusing everything about it, it's a...

MR. RUSSERT:But,
James
, is it a
problem
for the
Democrats
that they're still fighting...

MR. CARVILLE:You know, it is -- you know...

MR. RUSSERT:...while the
Republicans
are united?

MR. CARVILLE:...to, to, to one extent it is, to another extent, that registration in a, in a, in these primaries have gone way up. Look, it, you know, but, when people focus on this, in the
general election
, I am, I am -- and once they focus on like, you know,
John McCain
saying these problems are psychological or saying the
economic
fundamentals in this
country
are strong, I think they're going to
vote for change
. And I do think that
John McCain
, if anything, represents really more of the same in
foreign policy
,
economic policy
and
Iraq
policy.

MR. MURPHY:But see, that's the
problem
.

MR. CARVILLE:And that, and that is what -- that -- he -- his
Iraq
policy's the same as
Bush
, his
economic policy
's calling -- by the way, he's calling for, for cuts in the
corporate tax
rates. You know what corporate profits did in the last seven years? They soared. And that...

MR. MURPHY:Well, the reason
McCain
gives my Democratic pals here such conniption fits is he is the one Republican who is change. He's been a reformer his whole career. He's not the
Bush
third term, and he's got his own independent credibility, and the
country
knows it, which is why he's so formidable.

Now, the mistake the
McCain
folks could make is to run the Republican base
campaign
that we've proven now, after a couple of
midterm elections
, doesn't work. He's got to --
McCain
has to be
McCain
, which has some risk to it. The base won't always like it. But that's a very...

MR. RUSSERT:And may stay home.

MR. MURPHY:Could, but I think that's a safe bet for
McCain
to make because that's the winning
campaign
for
McCain
. And he's moving -- big
economic
speech next week, this tour. He's moving in that direction while the
Clinton-Obama
contest continues and gets even nastier with
Clintonbrought back to life
by this new gaffe over
small
town
America
.

MR. RUSSERT:Mary Matalin
, if
John McCain
distances himself from
George W. Bush
and the Republican base, emphasizes things like
climate change
, like
political
reform, what does that do to the Republican turnout?

MS. MATALIN:He's -- he is wearing very well. He is, he is speaking the language of base conservatives while not running a base
campaign
. Right now he's getting five times more crossovers,
Democrats
, than either of those -- the
Democrats
are getting
Republicans
. He's getting twice as many independents as they are getting, and he's winning on all the issues. He's laid out a growth
economic
plan, he's laid out a practical housing crisis plan, and people are not going to listen to this old-timey polemics -- or palaver of...

MR. SHRUM:The one, the one thing that's untrue...

MS. MATALIN:...you people...

MR. SHRUM:...
Mary
, is he's not winning on all the issues.

MS. MATALIN:Yes, he is.

MR. SHRUM:In fact, as
Tim
pointed out, what's remarkable is that he's running the race he is while he's losing on those issues. I ultimately think those issues reassert themselves. But let's be honest about this.
Tim
's right,
McCain
was the strongest Republican candidate. He is, while the
Democrats
continue to fight, reaching out, trying to do his best. He's got to give an
economic
speech next week where it sounds like he actually isn't bored by reading his own words, but...

MS. MATALIN:Why do you keep saying clownish things like that?

MR. SHRUM:...listen, I wish they had nominated
someone else
, because I think
John McCain
is the strongest Republican.

MR. SHRUM:Yes. I think, I think that the constant temptation to attack -- I mean, the suggestion that
Barack Obama
, coming from
Senator Clinton
, was not -- or at least the omission that he's capable of being commander in chief, the -- some of the attacks back at her, they defend them as counterattacks -- I think this process can go on -- will go on at least through
Indiana
and
North Carolina
. But people ought to be out there selling their own message. I actually think
Hillary Clinton
has a message now. She's talking about the
economy
...

MS. MATALIN:...it's a much more populist message. That's what she ought to be doing, not attacking him.

MR. SHRUM:Right.

MR. CARVILLE:And at the end of the process, when it's clear that one of them is going to win -- and I don't think she has much more than a 10 percent
chance
of winning. But when it's clear who has won, we should stop.

MR. SHRUM:James Carville
, since you were last on you made a
little
news.

MR. RUSSERT:I did.

MR. CARVILLE:When
Bill Richardson
endorsed
Barack Obama
, you offered this comment:"An act of betrayal. ... Mr.
Richardson
's endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when
Judas
sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing [
Holy Week
] is appropriate, if ironic."

MR. RUSSERT:Bill Richardson
has now responded."
Carville
and others say that I owe
President Clinton
's wife my endorsement because he gave me two jobs. Would someone who worked for
Carville
then owe his wife,
Mary Matalin
, similar loyalty in her professional pursuits? ... And while I was truly torn for weeks about this decision and seriously contemplated endorsing
Senator Clinton
, I never told anyone, including
President Clinton
, that I would do so. Those who say I did are misinformed or worse."

Well, first of all, I, I, I did say that and the reporter had -- I was a
little
disappointed, it was like "graph 7." I was expecting it to be a
little
higher in the story.

MR. CARVILLE:You were quoted accurately?

MR. RUSSERT:Yes, sir. In...

MR. CARVILLE:And in context?

MR. RUSSERT:In context and, and, and, and also, I'm very happy that I said it. And -- but I, I could say any number of things. I know what happened, I know what representations were made to
President Clinton
when Governor
Richardson
begged him to go watch the
Super Bowl
to him. I gave names of fundraisers that he told things to. I'll, I'll let this go. I'm glad I said it. Governor
Richardson
knows that know the truth. He knows the truth in all of this, and he's made his decision. By the way, I have never criticized a
Senator Obama
supporter.
Bobby Casey
, who I campaigned for six times, who, who I revered his father, that's his business. I said he was an honorable man. He made a decision he thought was in the
best interest
of this
country
.
Senator
, Senator
Kennedy
, Senator
Kerry
, Senator
Daschle
,
Rosa DeLauro
, all these people. I thought this was a
special case
that merited special attention. I gave it special attention, and I'm glad I did.

MR. CARVILLE:All right. Before we go, you say
McCain
-
Colin Powell
.

MR. RUSSERT:I...

MR. CARVILLE:On the Democratic side,
Obama
-who,
Clinton
-who?

MR. RUSSERT:I, I, I think that on the Democratic side, and I think it --
Obama
's thinking out loud at these fundraisers is something that he's going to have to learn to stop doing, OK?

MR. CARVILLE:Oh, I think he learned.

MR. SHRUM:Yeah, I think...

MR. CARVILLE:Particularly in
San Francisco
.

MR. RUSSERT:I, I, I, I think it is very important,
Demo
-- to
understand
, the nature of a
Democrat
is, is this thing is going to be -- if, if, if, he wins, and I -- it's a -- he should have a
little
better
chance
than 10 percent, but he's got a better
chance
right now, I would -- I will agree with that, and I think
Indiana
's pivotal, how the winner treats the loser is going to be very important.
Democrats
, if they, if, if, if they don't show respect, and I think it's less important that he pick
Senator Clinton
if he wins, or
Senator Clinton
wins picks
Senator Obama
, but they have to show a lot of respect because this thing has been a really hard fight, both of these candidates have been it for a long time, and that's what
Democrats
want.

MR. CARVILLE:But you could see them running together.

MR. RUSSERT:I could see it. I think the chances are, are, are not 50/50, but it's very possible. There's a
big history
of that happening.

MR. CARVILLE:Who are the tickets,
Mary
?
McCain
?

MR. RUSSERT:Boy, that would be -- that would be a
dream ticket
for us if they ran together.

MS. MATALIN:All right, who are the tickets.
McCain
, who?

MR. RUSSERT:McCain
and somebody that is -- can govern, that is a credible governor. The notion that he has to pick somebody that's fairly already know, it's somebody that can get known, but they have to have good cred on having experience across the board.
Dick Cheney
has changed the nature of that office. He -- this, this brilliant man has made that office completely...

MS. MATALIN:Is
Condi Rice
relevant?

MR. RUSSERT:Con
-- you know, what people don't know about
Dr. Rice
is that she weighed in on every domestic issue before the president when...

MS. MATALIN:But wouldn't that be third-term
Bush
?

MR. RUSSERT:Yeah.

MR. SHRUM:Yeah.

MR. MURPHY:You know, people are not -- people are sick of this
Bush bashing
stuff.

MS. MATALIN:Condi
--
Condi
who?

MR. CARVILLE:Come on,
Murphy
. Come on,
Murphy
, give us the tickets.

MR. RUSSERT:The candidates could be anybody, but I think it'll be a governor. Either
Pawlenty
,
Ridge
or
Romney
. That would be my best prediction.

MR. MURPHY:On the
Democrat
side?

MR. RUSSERT:You know, I think
Obama
might try the -- either the anti-war general, which is great on paper, really hard to do. Or maybe a reform male --
Bloomberg
, a
Tom Kean
, some Republican to do the bipartisan thing. I don't know, but it will be awful clever.

MR. MURPHY:McCain
with
Romney
or...

MR. RUSSERT:Rob Portman
, the former congressman from
Ohio
. I think you have to bet that
Obama
's going to be the nominee, and I think under those circumstances he'll pick someone with a
military
background despite what he said, and I think
Wes Clark
might be it.

MR. SHRUM:By a long-shot and I don't know if it's even a
Democrat
, but I think
General James Jones
.
General Zinni
, maybe a four-star Marine general,
NATO commander
. I mean it might not even be, but somebody like that would be -- I'm a former Marine. Let's get somebody from the corps there.